The primary ‘spygate” architect appears on CBS with Margaret Brennan to share his reaction to the sentence of Paul Manafort for tax fraud. Andrew McCabe said he was ‘shocked’, ‘s.h.o.c.k.e.d‘, that Manafort was not given a life sentence.

.

[Transcript] MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re back with former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He is the author of a new book, The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump. Good to have you here.

ANDREW MCCABE (Former Acting FBI Director/The Threat): Thanks so much for having me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to start you off on some of the news of the week.

ANDREW MCCABE: Okay.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced this week. He will also face sentencing in a DC court in the days to come. He was given forty-seven months, far less than what is the sentencing guideline of up to–

ANDREW MCCABE: That’s right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –twenty-plus years? Is the length of time he will serve matching the crimes he’s being accused of?

ANDREW MCCABE: Well, I was really surprised by the sentence he was given. I think it’s an incredibly lenient sentence in light not just of the– of the offenses he was convicted for but the additional offenses that he has pled guilty to in DC and the offenses he’s acknowledged, essentially, in the sentencing process in Virginia, that he is res– responsible for. So like most people I was shocked by how lenient the sentence was.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it sounds like you’re predicting that the DC court may add to those forty-seven months?

ANDREW MCCABE: Well, there’s no question he’s going to get additional time from DC. I don’t think it’s probably the– the job of the DC courts to rectify a mistake or– or something that was done in another jurisdiction. I’m sure that Judge Jackson will approach her sentence with just keeping our eye on the facts of that case but there’s no doubt he’ll get additional time from that process.

MARGARET BRENNAN: In your book The Threat you write about some of the President’s public comments about Paul Manafort in particular and you frame it in one passage as possible witness tampering. You say you fear a judge will be influenced by some of the po– the President’s comments. Did you have any sense that that’s what happened here with Judge Ellis?

ANDREW MCCABE: I don’t. I don’t. But the point that I try to make in the book is that it’s to try to highlight how incredibly irresponsible and, indeed, corrosive statements like that from the chief executive are on the process and on the public’s perception of the fairness and the effectiveness of the process. When the President engages in messaging like people can’t help but step back and ask themselves that question that you just asked, did that have an impact on the process or on the result in this case. We don’t know the answer to that but it introduces a level of doubt and insecurity into a system that we all need to depend on– depend upon to being fair and– and free.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The charges that Paul Manafort faced were in regard to financial crimes. Do you believe that he was a Russian asset?

ANDREW MCCABE: I don’t know the answer to that. I think that Mister Manafort’s extensive involvement with Ukrainian and Russian actors is highly suspicious. I think that that’s something that we’ll wait to see what the Mueller team opines on with their– with their final conclusion.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the President seized on a comment made by Judge Ellis who seemed to be just pointing out that the Russian potential links were not actually part of the trial–

ANDREW MCCABE: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –that we have seen underway here. So you’re saying there the President’s comments were not actually accurate.

ANDREW MCCABE: Well, that– that shouldn’t be a surprise. I think that Judge Ellis was very careful to indicate that he was sentencing Mister Manafort for the conduct that was before him. And he– Mister Manafort was not charged in that case with being an agent for the government of Russia. So I think– I think Judge Ellis’s efforts to be careful and tailor his words are far from an exoneration of Mister Manafort on any other potential charges.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you as well about Michael Cohen, the President’s longtime attorney and we played in the open some of the– the tapes showing the changing stories here in regard to–

ANDREW MCCABE: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –whether there was discussion or not of a presidential pardon. Now it appears according to the President that it was discussed. As an investigator, what do you make of that?

ANDREW MCCABE: Very, very hard to sort through a basically he said– he said argument between two people who have very challenged credibility. At the end of the day, the strength of Michael Cohen’s testimony– potential testimony is derived not from what he’s telling us now but rather from whatever facts and corroborative evidence the prosecutors were able to glean from that treasure trove of documents and recordings and other things that we’ve heard so much about.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re saying, don’t take him at his word, take him by the evidence he presents.

ANDREW MCCABE: That’s right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I– I want to ask you as well because, of course, the President constantly mentions the credibility that you have–

ANDREW MCCABE: Sure.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –and calls that into question, specifically, on the texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, which is something the President often comments on. You were asked about this on CNN by Anderson Cooper and you said you had no recollection of the meeting that was referred to in one of the text exchange between those two individuals which mentioned an insurance policy in case Trump got elected. Do you know why you were personally mentioned in those texts?

ANDREW MCCABE: I don’t. Lisa Page, Pete Strzok, and I and many other members of that investigative team met in my office, in conference rooms around FBI headquarters all the time. Right? So it was a– it was a ve– intensive investigation that required a lot of attention and a lot of involvement. So I can’t sit here and tell you years later the circumstances of exactly that instance that they seem to be referring to in that text. I also wasn’t a participant in that text, so I can’t add too much more to your understanding of it. I know that Peter has described in his own congressional testimony what he was referring to and I take him at his word for that description.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the– the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, has been on this program, specifically, referred to those texts and said that it is proof that you along with Strzok and Page showed political bias and a political agenda. And that’s why he wants to call you before the committee to ask– to answer some questions. So one of the other texts there was a quote that said, “We need to open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy is acting.” You, while you were acting FBI director. Do you know what case this is? Why would it matter that you were in that acting role?

ANDREW MCCABE: Well, again, I– I can’t tell you what Lisa and Pete were referring to in their private texts. I think I’ve been very clear publicly about how the investigators felt about the work that we needed to do–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.

ANDREW MCCABE: –in May of 2017. After Director Comey was fired, they made a recommendation to me that we open cases. I acted on that recommendation. I was feeling– I felt very strongly at that time that I needed to make those decisions quickly–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.

ANDREW MCCABE: –because I anticipated I would not be in the acting role for very long and I didn’t know who would be coming in behind me or how they would handle the ongoing investigation that we thought was important to conclude.

In reference to a question of whether Manafort was a “colluding with the Russions,” McCabe stated, “… I think that that’s something that we’ll wait to see what the Mueller team opines on with their– with their final conclusion.” Unless I’m missing something, investigators may “opine” while investigating – their opinions lead to theories lead to investigative efforts – but when announcing their findings they should have moved beyond opinion and on to fact. Accordingly, Mueller’s opining should have nothing to do with it…right?

OK, Mr. McCabe … I’ll play along. I want EVERY American investigated (to the degree of Mr. Manafort) … everyone … and whomever inflated their incomes in order to obtain a home loan (the so called bank fraud?) … I want jailed for LIFE.

The problem is … that the low information voter knows only two things about Manafort …

1. His $25k suits and ostrich skin boots
2. Bank Fraud

That’s all the detail they know … thus allowing Mr. McCabe to make INSANE statements.

Nothing more than the continuing tour to make people think that Manafort did something really incriminating regarding Russia and Trump. Unfortunately, any speaking allowed should be behind a glass wall at a federal prison.

McCabe, “I think it’s an incredibly lenient sentence in light…of the offenses he was convicted for…”. When comes time for McCabe to be sentence, let’s see if he still feels the same. Too bad Judge Ellis isn’t in D.C.